Dear Skip: I am forwarding to you the attached March 25, 2019 email from Mateo Restrepo, a Pro?curement Assistant, for Integrated Procure-to-Pay Solutions, at University of California, San Diego. While we certainly disagree, and are disappointed, with a number of the positions articulated in that note, we are actually heartened by the fact that they are so expressly stated and hope that you can be helpful in having us quickly resolve these things. We can provide additional documentation as and if necessary. We ?rst note that the email advises that Dr. Murphy should work with the ?Of?ce of Innovation and Commercialization to properly review the developed product and receive a License Agreement for its use of the software or obtain a release of ownership from UC of the software assigning all rights thereof to PeakLogic.? As you know, I have been trying to do this for some time, and have provided you all that you have asked. Please let me know what else, if anything, you need. If you don?t need anything else, let?s push this forward. Just to summarize, I am fully prepared to demonstrate that the positions articulated in the note are not based on the applicable facts, and I think I have already done that with and for you.. For instance, the statement that ?As the software represents a product developed within Dr Murphy?s course and scope of employment at is not true. I am a Board-certi?ed radiation oncologist, Professor and departmental Vice-Chair, not a software engineer or computer scientist. The development of this software is not within the course and scope of my employment. Likewise, the email speaks to the ?possibility? that the software was developed with University facilities or funds, it was not, as we have discussed. I would appreciate being able to demonstrate to whomever it is at the University that I must to actually move this process to conclusion. The software was developed outside the state of California by a third party contractor to Peaklogic as a work for hire owned by Peaklogic and paid for with independently raised investor funds. Finally, when the email notes that ?further information was requested on the ownership of the intellectual property of the software,? I repeatedly volunteered such information and responded to any inquiries; I will do so again if and as needed to resolve this now. Despite these repeated and previous disclosures, the attached email notes that certain next steps will occur ?[u]pon provision of the proper documentation satisfying the intellectual property concerns.? Yet no one has speci?ed to me what, if anything, is improper or incomplete about what I have provided. Indeed, even this email, which includes the notion that its author ?would advise Dr Kevin Murphy/PeakLogic? to take certain actions, did not come to me directly. I?d like to just be more direct and focused here. Very truly yours, Kevin Ex. A Begin forwarded message: From: "Matranga, Sandi" Subject: FW: Conflict of Interest - PeakLogic Inc. Date: March 25, 2019 at 2:56:18 PM PDT To: "Murphy, Kevin" From: Restrepo, Mateo Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 2:31 PM To: Matranga, Sandi Cc: Garcia, Veronica Mundt, A.J. Adams, Todd Mendoza, Alma Subject: Conflict of Interest - PeakLogic Inc. Sensitivity: Confidential Good afternoon Sandi, In response to your vendor status inquiry regarding PeakLogic Inc approval has not been granted for this request. As a recap of this case, the vendor request originated in June 2018 from the Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences with the disclosure that Dr Kevin Murphy owned in its entirety PeakLogic Inc. The proposed Agreement was in reference to the provision of the software developed by Dr Murphy/ PeakLogic Inc to initiate a clinical trial here at UC to report its efficacy in treating individuals. During the request, it was noted that Dr Kevin Murphy had made, participated in making, and/or influenced the acquisition decision and thus was not able to certify the statements therein the Employee-Vendor Relationship Disclosure form. Furthermore, it was noted that the PeakLogic software was developed during Dr Murphy?s employment at UC. As the software represents a product developed within Dr Murphy?s course and scope of employment at and possibly developed during the course of utilization of any UC research facilities or funds; further information was requested on the ownership of the intellectual property of the software. It was never determined whether the UC Office of Innovation and Commercialization had screened this product and released any claims of ownership. In accordance with the CA Political Reform Act 7 Sect 87100 and the CA Public Contract Code Sect 10516, 1) an employee cannot make, participate in making, or attempt to influence a purchase decision if there is a financial conflict of interest nor 2) shall any employee in the University contract of their own behalf as an independent contractor, as an individual or entity, with any University department to provide services and/or goods. With respect to the latter restriction, an exception can be granted if the employee has teaching or research responsibilities and the goods and/or services are not available either from commercial sources or from within the University. However, due to the noted interference in the Agreement the former restriction prohibits our office from recommending such exception to policy. Lastly, due to the aforementioned concern of the intellectual property ownership, we would not be able to approve a no-cost Agreement as it cannot be evidenced that PeakLogic Inc has the authority or ownership to engage in an Agreement licensing the rights of the software to UC. In conclusion, for the reasons mentioned herein, our office cannot recommend an exception to policy nor approve the vendor request. At this time, in order to facilitate any UC clinical trials associated with the software, I would advise Dr Kevin Murphy/PeakLogic to work with the Office of Innovation and Commercialization to properly review the developed product and either assign ownership of the software to UC and receive a License Agreement for its use of the software or obtain a release of ownership from UC of the software assigning all rights thereof to PeakLogic, as applicable. Upon provision of the proper documentation satisfying the intellectual property concerns, our office can review this case further with our partners at General Counsel and/or Conflict of Interest to determine if approval can be granted given the circumstances. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you, Mateo Quiroga Restrepo Procurement Assistant, Integrated Procure?to?Pay Solutions University of California, San Diego (858) 246-2358 I igps.ucsd.edu Please take a minute to complete this survey regarding your experience!